'No matter what the sentence is, it wouldn't be enough': Parents of Fordingbridge victim speak out

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

Two 15-year-old boys were eventually locked up for four years after the Court of Appeal ruled their initial non-custodial sentences were “unduly lenient”.

The mother of one of the girls, Jazmine* told LBC: “As a mother, as a family, as a, as any parent, obviously it's never going be enough. No matter what the sentence is, it wouldn't be enough.

"But in reality, four years taking off time which has already been spent and only doing half of time— we don't know what the exact calculation is.

"Mr Little hasn't told us what the numbers are, but it won't, it won't be more than months. It won't be, as far as I'm aware."

The girl’s father added: “It will never be a number that will replace the lifetime sentence that Jazmine has to live... and in any crime, any serious crime like this, it's the survivor that lives a life sentence.

“It was a heinous crime that should have had the utmost serious sentence, and the sentence certainly didn't match the crime.”

The boys, known as X and Y, and another aged 14 known as Z, were given non-custodial sentences in May for a combined 10 counts of rape and seven indecent image offences related to two victims, who were separately attacked in the Hampshire town in November 2024 and January 2025.

The two older boys were involved in both attacks, while the 14-year-old encouraged the rape of the second victim.

They were given non-custodial sentences in May after a judge at Southampton Crown Court said he should “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” and that detention was a “last resort”, but the Attorney General referred the sentences to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient” days later.

Charlotte Proudman, founder of Proudmans law firm, said that the parents of Jazmine are considering bringing  a formal complaint about the His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland over his leniency towards the attackers.

She told LBC: “Who actually holds judges accountable, and who polices judges? In fact, it's judges that police themselves. So you have an appeal - some of the most senior judges in the country saying that His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland had erred in his decision, so got his decision wrong, has caused serious harm to two victims as a consequence of his decision and the comments that he made within the judgment, within his sentencing remarks.

"And what happens to him? Effectively nothing. Jasmine's family, as I understand, are going to consider whether they wish to make a complaint, the Judicial Complaints Information Office.”

At a hearing on Wednesday, lawyers for the Attorney General said detention was the “only appropriate sentence”, while barristers for the boys said the sentences were correct and focused on rehabilitating them.

On Thursday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Edis and Ms Justice Norton sentenced X and Y to four years’ detention, while leaving Z’s sentence unchanged.

Reading a summary of their judgment to X and Y, who appeared by video link from Southampton Crown Court, Baroness Carr said: “We have decided that we do need to change your sentences and both of you do need to go into detention.”

She continued: “We have made this decision because we think that what you both did was so bad that we have no other choice.”

Baroness Carr later added: “Even though you will not be in detention for the whole of the four-year sentence, we know that it will still be a long time for you to be away from your home and families.

“But what you both did was so bad that we decided that we had no other choice than to make these sentences.”

Addressing Z, who also attended Southampton Crown Court, Baroness Carr said: “We have decided that because you were very young and find some things really very difficult to understand, and because you were only involved on one occasion, we do not need to change your sentence.”

The judge also said that while the sentencing judge, Judge Nicholas Rowland, faced a “difficult sentencing exercise”, a custodial sentence for X and Y was “unavoidable”.

Read more: 'Armed and dangerous' woman hunted as suspect in Monaco bomb assassination attempt

Read more: Family told to ‘squat' by council after no fault eviction from church trust flat

The families of the girls said they were “deeply grateful” and “relieved” after the decision to increase the sentences.

One family added: “We believe this was the correct decision, and we are thankful that our voices were heard throughout this process. While nothing can undo our family’s anguish, this outcome brings a greater sense of justice and accountability.”

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Rowland said that although X and Y’s offences “crossed the custody threshold” and posed a “high risk of serious harm” to young females, he had to consider their backgrounds.

He said X had been diagnosed with ADHD and “long-standing anxiety” while Y had an IQ in the bottom 1%, had ADHD with “extreme neurodevelopmental impairment” and presented “more like an eight-year-old”.

X was previously given a three-year youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with 180 days of intensive supervision and surveillance for raping and taking indecent images of both victims.

Y received the same sentence for three charges of rape against each of the two victims and four counts of taking indecent images by filming the incidents.

Z was given an 18-month YRO for two charges of rape related to the latter victim after encouraging the second defendant, and for an offence of indecent images.

But Baroness Carr said that Judge Rowland “undervalued the seriousness of their offending and the serious harm caused by it to the complainants”.

She continued: “The involvement in the two incidents taken together was such that an immediate and substantial period of detention was required.”

In the Court of Appeal’s 52-page full judgment, Baroness Carr said statements from the two girls “spoke of enduring distress and despair”, but Judge Rowland “did not explain why he found that this material did not prove severe psychological harm”.

Baroness Carr continued: “It appears that he may have placed substantial weight on his own impressions formed during the trial.

“He was entitled to take that into account, but great care is required before allowing that impression to lead to the rejection of evidence of the kind we have described.”

The senior judge added that the two girls’ rapes are “very likely to have long-term and profound consequences, not all of which are immediately apparent”.

The boys are pursuing appeals against their convictions, Baroness Carr also said, adding that any appeal “will be decided separately”.

Baroness Carr later said the original judge failed to explain “how, if at all, he was reflecting the fact that both X and Y had been involved in two incidents involving different victims, each of whom was raped more than once by different people”.

She also said the judge had found that peer pressure was involved in the incidents, “although he did not identify any substantial evidence to support that view”.

The leading judge added: “The principal offenders, X and Y, do not appear to have required much encouragement and, anyway, simply repeated their behaviour after the first incident rather than learning from it or gaining any insight.”

She concluded the judge had “materially undervalued the seriousness of the offending by X and Y”, who would have been given sentences “substantially in excess of 10 years” if they were adults.

The three judges also extended X and Y’s restraining orders, preventing them from contacting either victim, from 10 years to an indefinite order.

Baroness Carr also said there had been “misinformed and inappropriate commentary” on the case, having previously criticised the Crown Prosecution Service over inaccuracies in a press release issued when the boys were first sentenced in May, which were not corrected for several days.

Following the decision, Attorney General Lord Hermer said: “Rape is a horrifying crime, and one that our justice system should and will punish severely. I welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision to increase the sentences of the two boys, resulting in their detention.

“No-one should have to endure what the victims went through, and I commend their bravery in coming forward and campaigning for justice. This Government will continue to do everything it can to tackle violence against women and girls.”

*Names have been changed